Corporation. Statutory Liability of Stockholders. Subrogation

1915 Virginia law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact 394 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW confessed judgment, to reimburse him by working for him upon terms approved by the court, and that upon a breach of the contract of service, the convict should be liable to rearrest; a new prosecution and a new fine for the breach. Held, the statute is unconstitutional, since its operation results in a condition of peonage forbidden by the Federal Statutes. United States v. Reynolds, 35 Sup. Ct. 86. See NoTEs, p. 385. CONTEMPT-WHAT CONSTITUTES CONTEMPT.-The defendant, who was not an officer of the court, did acts in furtherance of a conspiracy to bring a baseless suit. He did not bring the suit, nor do any thing after suit was brought. The suit was dismissed before trial. Held, the defendant is not guilty of contempt. Melton v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 170 S. W. 37. Direct contempt is some objectionable or disturbing act committed in the presence of the court. See Ferriman v. People, 128 Ill. App. 230; Neely v. State, 98 Miss. 816, 54 South. 315, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138, 27 Ann. Cas. 281. Constructive contempt is some act not done in the presence of the court, but which tends to obstruct the administration of justice or bring the court into disrepect. See In re Dill, 32 Kan. 668, 5 Pac. 39, 49 Am. Rep. 505; Ex parte Clark, 208 Mo. 121, 106 S. W. 990, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 389. The bringing of a fictitious suit is a contempt of court. Coxe v. Phillips, Hardw. 237. See Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251; Smith v. Junction R. Co., 29 Ind. 546. One who carriers on a pretended controversy by counsel is guilty of contempt. See Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 66 U. S. 419. Publication, even before indictment, of matter tending to prevent a fair trial in a future criminal prosecution has been held to be contempt. Rex v. Parke, L. R. 2 K. B. (1903) 432. The defendant's act in the principal case undoubtedly comes within some of the broad definitions of constructive contempt adduced by the courts. But it is the policy of the law not to extend proceedings for constructive contempt to cases not coming within the established rules. See Haskett v. State, 51 Ind. 176. This seems due to the fact that the proceeding is a summary one, and that there is no jury trial. The case of Rex v. Parke, supra, seems to be the only case holding an act done before any judicial proceedings are instituted to be contempt. In that case the defendant had published statements to the effect that one then under arrest for an indictable offense was of bad character and had been guilty of criminal acts in the past. The publication of such matter would seem to be extremely detrimental to a fair trial in a criminal case, and for this reason, the holding in Rex v. Parke, supra, seems eminently sound, but it would appear to rest upon its own peculiar facts, and not to be authority for extending its doctrine beyond cases of that class. CORPORATION-STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS-SUBROGATION.-A State Constitutional provision made stockholders in banks liable to depositors for a sum equal in amount to their stock, over and above the par value of the same. A bank failed, and the stockholders were compelled to make payments to the depositors under the above provi- 394 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW
doi:10.2307/1063574 fatcat:hw4wpx7mxba7zmk66e6i4jhhfe